YouTube had the discretion to take down content that harmed users, judge said.

YouTube under no obligation to host anti-vaccine advocate’s videos, court says::YouTube had the discretion to take down content that harmed users, judge said.

  • ℛ𝒶𝓋ℯ𝓃@pawb.socialEnglish
    30·
    1 year ago

    Yeah, that’s the right decision here. I’m all for open forums but anti-vax stuff is likely against the terms of service (false medical advice from non-credentialed amateurs with a political agenda). YouTube is a publisher, there’s no such thing as an “open forum” as any such place would be quickly overrun with racists and fascists, etc. It’s simply a matter of how consistent and unimposing the rules for removal can be (like Lemmy) vs arbitrary removal for a political agenda (like a news station). And any effective rules set would remove anti-vax content.

    • madthumbs@lemmy.worldEnglish
      04·
      1 year ago

      Youtube shadow banned raw footage and promoted heavily narrated and edited clips of that footage. -Directly responsible for riots and civil unrest. While I agree about the anti-vax nonsense; youtube / google need to be exposed for what they are doing.